host_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful specifics: `write` creates or replaces a file, and `delete` removes `name`. This clarifies the destructive behavior beyond the annotation flag without contradicting it. It does not cover permissions or error behavior, but with annotations present that is a modest gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource, scope, and available actions without wasted words. It uses a colon to enumerate actions compactly and is appropriately sized for the tool. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations disclose the safety profile, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's scope and action set for a host file utility. It could be more complete by mentioning access requirements or action-specific limitations, but the core operational context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter and action in detail, including defaults and requirements. The description reinforces the action names and C:\ file scope but adds little syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields carry the parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear resource and scope: text files on a PC, laptop or server, specifically files in C:\ that a Text Editor opens and `dir` lists. It enumerates the four actions (list, read, write, delete) so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by defining the tool as working with host text files in C:\ and by listing the available actions. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not point to alternatives such as run_host_command or other host-configuration siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.